Venue: Phoenix Chamber, Phoenix House, Tiverton
Contact: Carole Oliphant Member Services Officer
Link: audio recording
APOLOGIES AND SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS (0.03.32)
To receive any apologies for absence and notices of appointment of substitute.
Apologies were received from Cllrs Mrs F J Colthorpe (Vice Chairman in the Chair) and E J Berry.
Members to note the Hybrid Meetings Protocol.
The Committee had before it, and NOTED, the *Hybrid Meetings Protocol.
Note: *Protocol previously circulated and attached to the minutes
PUBLIC QUESTION TIME (0.04.09)
To receive any questions relating to items on the Agenda from members of the public and replies thereto.
Note: A maximum of 30 minutes is allowed for this item.
Mr Salter – referring to Item 9 on the agenda (Tiverton EUE)
Nationally, there is a consensus that key requirements for affordable homes on new developments are:
In Tiverton Civic Society’s first objection to this planning application, we approved of the provision of much needed social housing, but we argued against the construction of the large visually obtrusive three storey Neighbourhood Hub in Plot C, which had been introduced without consultation since the Outline Application, and we suggested that, to encourage greater social cohesion, affordable housing should be distributed throughout the development site. Russell Smith, for Walsingham Planning, countered by stating that the hub will be of an appropriate scale and that it is not a sensitive location, going on to write that ‘affordable housing has been provided in a mix of apartments and two storey dwellings, with affordable housing being spread across all phases’.
Examination of the recently posted plan of affordable housing shows this statement to be somewhat economical with the truth. In particular, apart from the Neighbourhood Hub, there is no other housing of this category in Plot C, the extensive development south of Blundell’s Road, it being entirely concentrated in the north-west sector in two small Plots, 1A and 1B, of mixed, low- cost, market and affordable housing the affordable housing being located on either side of the new linking road leading to the A361 junction, shared equity housing being located to the west of this road and social housing to the east. In terms many of the criteria listed above it is very hard to justify these locations and this concentration.
We have specific concerns about the line of affordable housing comprising units 140-149, which will face the potentially very busy linking road. At this point the gap between these dwellings and this road will be no more than five metres, thus exposing the occupants to the highest potential levels of air and noise pollution on the complete Redrow site, and compromising the safety of families, especially those with young children.
During meetings with Redrow Homes the MDDC Planning Officer was very aware of the need to establish a green boundary space on the western side of the linking road, thereby setting these affordable properties, much further back. However, this was refused by the applicants, thus suggesting that they have little interest in the quality of life ... view the full minutes text for item 53.
DECLARATION OF INTERESTS UNDER THE CODE OF CONDUCT (0.34.03)
Councillors are reminded of the requirement to declare any interest, including the type of interest, and reason for that interest at each item.
Members were reminded of the need to make declaration where appropriate.
Members to consider whether to approve the minutes as a correct record of the meeting held on 14TH July 2021.
The minutes of the meeting held on 14th July 2021 were agreed as a true record and were duly SIGNED by the Chairman
CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS (0.35.20)
To receive any announcements the Chairman may wish to make.
The Chairman reminded Members that there would be a Special Planning Committee on 18th August 2021 and that Planning Training was being held on 9th August 2021.
DEFERRALS FROM THE PLANS LIST (0.36.18)
To report any items appearing in the Plans List which have been deferred.
There were no deferrals from the Plans list.
To consider the planning applications contained in the list.
The Committee considered the applications in the plans list *.
Note: *List previously circulated; copy attached to the signed Minutes.
(a) Applications dealt with without debate.
In accordance with its agreed procedure the Committee identified those applications contained in the Plans List which could be dealt with without debate.
RESOLVED that the following application be determined or otherwise dealt with in accordance with the various recommendations contained in the list namely:
a) No 3 on the Plans List application 21/01086/HOUSE - Erection of side porch at Bluebell House, 18 Court Barton Close, Thorverton be approved subject to conditions as recommended by the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration.
(Proposed by the Chairman)
Reason for decision – as outlined in the report
i.) Cllrs G Barnell, S J Clist, L J Cruwys, Mrs C P Daw, R J Dolley, C J Eginton, P J Heal, F W Letch and B G J Warren made declarations in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors dealing with planning matters as the applicant was known to them
b) Application 21/00461/FULL – Erection of extensions to existing agricultural storage building 600sqm at land at NGR 288288 107120, Redyeates Cross, Cheriton Fitzpaine
The Area Team Leader explained that at the Planning Committee on 14th July Members had deferred a decision on the application until additional information had been provided and that the information requested by Members was included within his report.
He then reminded Members of the application by way of a presentation which highlighted the site location plan, proposed plans, the position of the approved agricultural workers dwelling and photographs of the site.
The Officer explained that the proposed extension would house livestock and that Public Health had no objections to the scheme. A waste management plan had been received and approved by Public Health.
The Area Team Leader confirmed that although there was no requirement for the applicant to provide an agricultural appraisal one had been submitted as part of the application for the approved agricultural workers dwelling.
Consideration was given to:
· The views of the Public Health Officer who had no objection to the application
· The views of the objector who stated that there was no business case or management plan provided and evidence was lacking for the need for the scheme
· The views of the applicant who reminded Members that they had granted permission for an agricultural workers cottage on the site specifically to expand his stock and that the scheme was supported and partly funded by Natural England
· The views of Members that the Parish Council had not made strong views known either way
· Members concerns with the size of the building in the open countryside
· Members views that agricultural buildings had to be put in the countryside and that the application was contemporary for agricultural use
It was therefore RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to conditions as recommended by the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration.
(Proposed by the Chairman) ... view the full minutes text for item 58.
To consider a report of the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration with regard to the above application.
The Committee had before it a report of the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration regarding the above application.
The Planning Officer provided the following responses to public questions:
· An overview of the siting and size of affordable housing
· Environmental Health had raised no concerns
· Officers felt that affordable housing was distributed throughout the development
· There had been extensive public consultation through the master planning and planning process
· Early consultation with the Design Review Panel was sought
· Outline applications were illustrative and defined reserved matters applications determined the final design
· There was a minimum separation standard between detached properties
· The applicant had complied with centre to edge principles
· South of Blundells Road was identified a residential core area in the Tiverton EUE Design Guide
· The Neighbourhood hub had been developed through the emerging application process and within the Adopted Masterplan SPD and Tiverton EUE Design Guide centre to edge principles
· The buffer strip would have restricted access
· There was no requirement for a 5 metre buffer within the Adopted Masterplan SPD or Tiverton EUE Design Guide
· The pressure upon Officers was to gain a decision within statutory time frames; within a timely manner
The Officer then provided Members with an overview of the reserved matters application by way of a presentation which highlighted the site location plan, the Tiverton EUE illustrative framework plan, aerial view, character area plans, planning layout, detailed landscape plans, land ownership plan, storey heights plan and photographs of the site.
She explained that the reserved matters proposal included a softer landscape, changes to building types, a buffer strip and detailed landscape plan which were recommendations of the Design Review Panel which met on 9th June 2021.
Consideration was given to:
· The applicant had tried to identify different character areas including a neighbourhood hub
· Justification for smaller flats had been identified in the Housing Needs Survey and was not a reserved matters consideration
· The flats fitted in with the different character areas
· Maintenance of shared areas would be by a management company
· A 5 metre buffer zone was not established or a requirement in the EUE masterplan and would be assessed on a site by site basis
· Approval of the Urban Design and Architectural Principles document had been delegated to the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration
· Confirmation from the DCC Highways Officer that there was no Highways Policy which determined there had to be two accesses onto a site if over a certain number of units and that they were content with the layout of the first part of the development
· Concerns of Members that there was no leisure space on the north side of Blundells Road or safe crossing areas
· The views of the objector who felt that the officer had not answered all of the public questions, the master plan had turned into fiction, there had been no recognition of the visual impact and that TPO’s had not been protected
· The view of the agent who stated that Redrow had an agreement with ... view the full minutes text for item 59.